Is protecting your design with IP still worth it or is speed-to-market the real game changer?

There’s a growing school of thought in industrial design that says: don’t waste time and money on patents or design rights just get your product out there, build your brand, and stay ahead of the competition. In fast-moving markets, by the time you’ve filed and enforced your rights, the world may have already moved on.

On the other hand, IP protection can be a powerful business asset. It can help you attract investment, open doors to licensing deals, and give you leverage in negotiations. For some, just having a registered design or patent is enough to deter copycats and signal credibility, even if enforcement is rare.

Personally, I see value in both approaches. Not every design needs full protection, and sometimes speed and visibility are the best defence. But for truly innovative or high-value products, strategic IP can make all the difference.

But what about designers with great ideas, but limited resources?

It’s one thing to talk about speed-to-market or IP protection when you have the resources to launch and defend your design. For many independent designers, the real challenge is getting their idea noticed and commercialised in the first place.

For these creators, IP protection can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, it can help attract partners, licensees, or investors by showing you’re serious and have something unique. On the other, the costs of filing, maintaining, and enforcing rights can be prohibitive and there’s always the risk of being copied before you can act.

Some designers choose to focus on building visibility and networks, hoping to attract the right partner or buyer. Others invest in selective protection, targeting only their most promising ideas or key markets.

Is there a better way for designers to bridge this gap? Should we be rethinking how early-stage ideas are protected, shared, or commercialised?